Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 310 (MP)

Rajesh Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2021-03-04

AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2021
ORDER : Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR No. 455/2020 registered by Police Station Dehat, Hoshangabad against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 354A, 354D of IPC and section 3(1) (W) (i), 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that due to some animosity with the husband of the complainant in respect of some demand of money regarding maintenance of the residential society, the complainant with a revengeful mentality lodged a false and fabricated report against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the applicant also filed some complaint against the husband of the complainant regarding illegal recovery but no action thereon was taken by the authority. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 opposed the application stating that the applicant did not comply with the direction issued by this court on 02.12.2020 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 5521/2020 whereby this court while dismissing the application for anticipatory bail granted liberty, as prayed, to the applicant to surrender before the Arresting officer to co-operate in the investigation. Hence it has been prayed that this petition be dismissed. 4. Learned panel lawyer appearing for the State has also opposed the prayer for quashment of FIR stating that applicant has a right to raise the ground which can be taken in defence at the stage of defence during trial. 5. Heard rival submission of the parties and perused the case diary. 6. The issues raised by the applicant cannot be evaluated and appreciated at this stage. At this stage this court has only to see whether the F.I.R. discloses the ingredients of the offence or not. Even at this stage, it is also not necessary that there must be sufficient evidence to convict the applicant. 7. The scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed by the Apex court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 215 extensively. The relevant paras are reproduced herein:- "10. Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have a thorough look at Section 482 CrPC, which reads: 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 215 extensively. The relevant paras are reproduced herein:- "10. Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have a thorough look at Section 482 CrPC, which reads: 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A bare perusal of Section 482 CrPC makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard-and-fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straitjacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. 11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC and how cautious and careful the approach of the courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgment, which reads: (SCC p. 272, para 2) 2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the chargesheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as the rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount. 12. This Court in a plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the courts under Section 482 CrPC. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [ (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], (2) Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] and (3) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] observed that: The power under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed. Also see : Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand [ (2012) 12 SCC 72 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 472], SCC p. 95, para 43. 13. What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be 5 M.Cr.C. No. 50724/2018 quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the court can exercise the power under Section 482 CrPC. While exercising the power under the provision, the courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact." 8. Further, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa reported in AIR 2002 SC 671 it is held that it would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. 9. So far as lodging of malafide report under the provisions of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned at this stage, this court cannot presume as to whether the allegation levelled by the victim against the accused is malafide or false. 9. So far as lodging of malafide report under the provisions of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned at this stage, this court cannot presume as to whether the allegation levelled by the victim against the accused is malafide or false. The Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi Vs. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia @ Omkarjeet Singh and others, AIR 2017 SC 1583 has held that malafide or bonafide of case only be considered at the time of trial. 10. The Apex Court in the case of J.P. Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and others reported in (1986) 3 SCC 67 has held that if prima facie offences made out on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint without going into truth or otherwise of the allegations, High Court cannot exercise its power under Section 482. 11. Considering the aforesaid legal position and the entire material available on record, this petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the concerning court for information and compliance.